Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Landmarks > Landmarks > Flashcards

Landmarks Flashcards

1
Q

Clear and convincing standard of proof in state involuntary commitment proceeding, held to be required by Fourteenth Amendment due process.

A

Addington v Texas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Addington v Texas constitutional issue

A

14th Amendment due process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Addington v Texas issue

A

What standard of proof is required by the 14th Amendment to involuntarily civilly commit an individual?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Texas Supreme Court in Addington v Texas said which standard of proof satisfied due process?

A

preponderance of the evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Addington v Texas court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Sexually-dangerous-persons proceedings held civil rather than criminal, so that federal constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in such proceedings.

A

Allen v Illinois

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Allen v Illinois court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Allen v Illinois issue

A

Does the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination apply in commitment proceedings for sexually dangerous persons?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what other landmark case does Allen v Illinois cite

A

-cited Estelle v Smith Dr. Grigson (Dr. Death) did comp eval w/o consent – used info from comp eval at death penalty sentencing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Execution of criminals who were mentally retarded held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

A

Atkins v Virginia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Atkins v Virginia court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Atkins v Virginia issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to execute a defendant who is mentally retarded?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

starie decisis

A

let the decision stand (to violate means to overrule a prior ruling)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Landmark cases that exhibited starie decisis

A

Atkins v Virginia
Payne v Tennessee
Roper v Simmons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Atkins v Virginia dissent

A

made fun of citing poll data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Penry

A

prior rape offense – brutally stabs women decorating her apartment for Halloween on Oct 30th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Petitioner was denied equal protection of the laws by the statutory procedure whereby a person may be civilly committed at the expiration of a prison sentence without the jury review available to all others civilly committed in New York, and by his commitment to an institution maintained by the Department of Correction beyond the expiration of his prison term without the judicial determination that he is dangerously mentally ill such as that afforded to all those so committed except those nearing the end of a penal sentence.

A

Baxstrom v Herold

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Baxstrom v Herold court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Baxstrom v Herold issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to civilly commit an individual at the end of a prison sentence without judicial involvement?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Baxstrom v Herold constitutional issue

A

Violated 14th Amendment equal protection clause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Colorado v Connelly court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Colorado v Connelly issue

A

Can a court deem a Miranda waiver involuntary despite no evidence of police coercion (i.e., based only on the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the waiver)?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not “voluntary” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.

A

Colorado v Connelly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Whenever the State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement allegedly obtained in violation of the Miranda doctrine, the State need prove waiver only by a preponderance of the evidence.

A

Colorado v Connelly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Cooper v Oklahoma court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Cooper v Oklahoma issue

A

Is it unconstitutional that the burden of proof placed on the defendant to prove he/she is incompetent to stand trial be clear and convincing evidence?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Statute which provided that accused was presumed to be competent to stand trial unless accused proved incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violated accused’s right to due process under Fourteenth Amendment.

A

Cooper v Oklahoma

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

clear and convincing evidence

A

deportation
denaturalization
termination of parental rights
civil commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Daubert v Merrell Dow issue

A

Does the Frye standard of “general acceptance” in the field to which it belongs hold in a federal trial for admission of expert scientific testimony?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Daubert v Merrell Dow court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial.

A

Daubert v Merrell Dow

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Daubert factors

A
  1. whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested
  2. whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
  3. its known or potential error rate
  4. the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
  5. whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community
  6. any other info the judge wants to include
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Durham v United States issue

A

Are the current criteria of the right-wrong test and the irresistible impulse test adequate measures of criminal responsibility?

no - abandoned both

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Durham v United States court

A

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.

A

Durham v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Dusky v United States issue

A

What should the standard be to find a defendant is competent to stand trial?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Dusky v United States court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

The test must be whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.

A

Dusky v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Estelle v Smith issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to allow testimony at the death penalty sentencing phase from a psychiatric evaluation done pre-trial, when the defendant was not informed that his statements may be used at the sentencing phase?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Estelle v Smith court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Admission at penalty phase of capital murder trial of testimony by psychiatrist who conducted court-ordered pretrial competency examination, held violative of defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

A

Estelle v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Estelle v Smith constitutional issue

A

5th amendment right to protection against self-incrimination

6th amendment right to counsel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Ford v Wainwright issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to execute a defendant who is insane without any type of court procedure/hearing?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Ford v Wainwright court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

The accused was entitled to a de novo evidentiary hearing in the District Court on the question of his competence to be executed, because Florida’s statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner’s sanity were defective and were inadequate to preclude federal redetermination of constitutional issues.

A

Ford v Wainwright

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

The Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits a state from carrying out the death sentence on a prisoner who is insane.

A

Ford v Wainwright

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

It is of questionable retributive value to execute a person who has no comprehension of why he has been singled out and stripped of his fundamental right to life. Civilized societies feel a natural abhorrence for killing one who has no capacity to come to grips with his own conscience or deity, and such an execution offends humanity.

A

Ford v Wainwright

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

In capital proceedings generally, the Court has demanded that factfinding procedures aspire to a heightened standard of reliability. (death is different)

A

Ford v Wainwright

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Foucha v Louisiana issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to hold an insanity acquittee in a mental institutional after it has been determined he/she no longer suffers from mental illness (but who continues to be dangerous)?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Foucha v Louisiana court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Louisiana statute, permitting indefinite detention of insanity acquittees who are not mentally ill but who do not prove they would not be dangerous, held to violate Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

A

Foucha v Louisiana

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Frendak v US issue

A

Can an insanity defense be imposed on a defendant over his/her objection?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Frendak v US court

A

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Because the defendant must bear the ultimate consequences of any decision, if a defendant has acted intelligently and voluntarily, a trial court must defer to his or her decision to waive the insanity defense.

A

Frendak v US

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Frye v United States court

A

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Frye v United States issue

A

Must a witness meet a certain standard to be allowed to testify as an expert witness?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Expert testimony requires standing and scientific recognition from its particular field of specialty

A

Frye v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Ibn-Tamas v US issue

A

Is expert testimony on battered women admissible?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Ibn-Tamas v US court

A

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

The Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in precluding the psychologist’stestimony because it would not invade the province of the jury – either on the ultimate issue or on a “beyond the ken” basis.

A

Ibn-Tamas v US

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Indiana v Edwards issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to deprive an obviously mentally ill person who is competent to stand trial the right to represent themselves at trial?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Indiana v Edwards court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.

A

Indiana v Edwards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Which of the following amendments were violated in Rock v Arkansas?

A

All of the above

6th amendment
14th amendment
5th amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Witness may only testify to matters stated before hypnosis.

A

State v Hurd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Banned per se rule barring hypnotically refreshed testimony by defendant

A

Rock v Arkansas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Suppressed hypnotically refreshed identification of defendant

A

State v Hurd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Established the standard for competency in the United States

A

Dusky v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Proposed procedural guidelines for court testimony about hypnosis

A

State v Hurd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Which of the following case opined that the standard for appellate review was “an abuse of discretion?”

A

General Electric Co v Joiner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Which of the following is acceptable in California courts?

A

A psychiatrist’s testimony regarding the results of an MMPI-2 of a suspect?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Which of the following psychological tests may be considered “suspect” regarding the Daubert criteria?

A

Draw-a-Person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Which of the following statements is MOST TRUE regarding the holding specifically in Kuhmo Tire Co v Carmichael?

A

Daubert factors apply to all “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge, not just “scientific.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

The two components to establish criminal responsibility are

A

mens rea

actus rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Why were subjects of the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, the focus of Allen v Illinois, not protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court?

A

The Court did not consider the proceedings criminal in nature.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Which of the following statements regarding O’Connor v Donaldson is/are true?

A

Both B&D are correct

The Supreme Court chose not to address whether Mr. Donaldson had a right to treatment.

A state cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Which of the following statements best summarizes the Supreme Court’s ruling in Parham v J.R.?

A

Georgia’s voluntary commitment procedures did not violate due process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

All of the following cases deal with testimony at the sentencing phase except

A

Ford v Wainwright

Ake v Oklahoma
Estelle v Smith
Barefoot v Estelle
Payne v Tennessee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

All of the following cases violate stare decisis except

A

Both B and C

Rock v Arkansas
Powell v Texas

Payne v Tennessee
Roper v Simmons
Atkins v Virginia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Which constitutional issue did the Supreme Court primarily cite in Ake v Oklahoma

A

due process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

Lack of control determination must be made for SVP determination

A

Kansas v Crane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

Discussed Dr. Lenore Walker’s research on battered women

A

Ibn-Tames v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Daubert standard applies to non-scientific testimony

A

Kumho Tire Company v Carmichael

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Established that amnesia alone cannot deem a defendant incompetent

A

Wilson v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

Discussed several reasons why a defendant may prefer not to plead NGRI

A

Frendak v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

Psychiatrists can speak to dangerousness based on hypotheticals alone

A

Barefoot v Estelle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Introduced the “product test” for insanity

A

Durham v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

Confirmed the “abuse of discretion” standard to evaluate trial courts

A

General Electric v Joiner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

Insanity evaluations must assess nature and quality and wrongfulness

A

Daniel M’Naghten’s Case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

Defendant’s right to testify on their own behalf extends to hypnotically refreshed testimony

A

Rock v Arkansas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

You are employed by a state forensic hospital. You receive a call from the Department of Corrections notifying you that they have an inmate with mental illness whose needs cannot be met in prison. They plan on transferring him to you. What is the most appropriate response?

A

Inquire if they has been a Vitek hearing regarding the proposed transfer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

The involuntary transfer of an inmate to a mental hospital during their incarceration impinges on a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment

A

Vitek v Jones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

The involuntary transfer of an inmate to a mental hospital during their incarceration impinges on a liberty interest that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment

A

Neither

Baxstrom v Herold
Vitek v Jones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

The extension of an inmate’s prison term at the end of his criminal sentence by commitment to a mental hospital violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment

A

Neither

Baxstrom v Herold
Vitek v Jones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

The extension of an inmate’s prison term at the end of his criminal sentence by commitment to a mental hospital violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment

A

Baxstrom v Herold

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

Which case established the standard for trial competency in the United States

A

Dusky v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

In Wilson v United States, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for more extensive post-trial finding on whether memory loss had deprived the defendant of rights associated with which constitutional amendments?

A

5th and 6th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

According to Jackson v Indiana, the accused may only be held long enough to determine

A

Probability for competency restoration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

In Jackson v Indiana, Theon Jackson raised an equal protection argument in which he compared himself to which group of people?

A

Civilly committed patients

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

All of the following have been allowed to use a clear and convincing evidence standard except

A

Competency to stand trial

termination of parental rights
deportation
denaturalization
civil commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
101
Q

Which case established the standard for trial competency in the United States?

A

Dusky v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
102
Q

The current standard for trial competency is best summarized by which of the following statements

A

As a result of mental illness, the defendant does not have the sufficient present ability to have a rational or factual understanding of the charges against him or to rationale assist his attorney in his defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
103
Q

General acceptance test

A

Frye v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
104
Q

Daubert standard applies to non-scientific testimony

A

Kumho Tire Company v Carmichael

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
105
Q

Case involved both the 5th and 6th amendments

A

Wilson v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
106
Q

Established standard to plead guilty or represent self as the same as Dusky

A

Godinez v Moran

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
107
Q

Judge as the gatekeeper

A

Daubert v Merrell Dow

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
108
Q

How did the Supreme Court differentiate Jones V United States from Jackson v Indiana

A

Mr. Jackson was a pre-trial detainee and therefore had not been sentenced for any crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
109
Q

which of the following are valid uses of substance use/dependence as a defense

A

all of the above

withdrawal delirium
involuntary intoxication
lingering psychosis
pathological intoxication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
110
Q

in which if the following areas can voluntary intoxication NOT be considered in a criminal case

A

insanity defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
111
Q

which disclosures of information regarding substance abuse treatment are permitted without a specific release of information signed by the patient

A

to criminal justice system if referred by court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
112
Q

which of the following is a test of executive functioning which specifically measures novel problem solving and mental flexibility

A

the Wisconsin Card Sorting Tests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
113
Q

intelligence tests such as the Wechsler scales (I.e., WAIS-III) provide standard scores that have been corrected for

A

age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
114
Q

the minimum evidentiary standard that states must use in civil commitment proceedings is

A

clear and convincing evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
115
Q

You are consulted to do a capacity assessment on a patient who is refusing a blood transfusion after a car accident. The need for the transfusion is not emergent, but will be needed before performing a surgery to repair numerous fractures. You examine the patient and find him to be delirious, combative, and uncooperative. You determine he lacks capacity. You can legally authorize the transfusion in all situations, except

A

The patient is a Jehovah’s Witness who carries a advance directive card in his wallet expressing a wish to not receive blood products

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
116
Q

the Northwestern Juvenile Project highlighted key findings including

A

all of the above

the majority of juveniles met criteria for one of more psychiatric disorders

substance use was the most common disorder found in juveniles

females have higher rates of psychiatric disorder than males

ninety-three percent of juveniles had been exposed to one or more trauma

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
117
Q

in the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v Simmons, the following were cited as reasons to abolish the death penalty for juvenile offenders under the 8th amendment

A

all of the above

juveniles are less mature and have less sense of responsibility than adults

adolescents are more susceptible to external influences such as peer pressure

personality traits in adolescents are less fixed than in adults

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
118
Q

factors related to consistency of memory of traumatic experiences include the following

A

the more severe the trauma, the higher the consistency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
119
Q

misconceptions about child testimony include the following

A

all of the following are misconceptions

the more detailed the testimony, the more accurate it is likely to be

children easily differentiate something they heard from something they experienced

experts can make valid assessments of the accuracy of children’s reports

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
120
Q

Jackson v Indiana court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
121
Q

Jackson v Indiana issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to indefinitely commit a defendant based solely on his/her incompetency to stand trial?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
122
Q

It deprives defendants of equal protection and violates due process to indefinitely commit a defendant based solely on incompetency to stand trial prior to any conviction.

A

Jackson v Indiana

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
123
Q

Jones v US court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
124
Q

Jones v US issue

A

Does it violate due process to hold someone in a mental facility for longer than the maximum sentence for their charge once found not guilty by reason of insanity?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
125
Q

When a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, the Constitution permits the Government, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental institution until such time as he has regained his sanity or is no longer a danger to himself or society.

A

Jones v US

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
126
Q

Kansas v Crane court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
127
Q

Kansas v Crane issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to civilly commit a sexually violent predator with no evidence that his mental illness causes him to lack control over his behavior?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
128
Q

The Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offenders considered in Hendricks without determining the offender lacks self-control, though it does not have to be total lack of control.

A

Kansas v Crane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
129
Q

what amendments did Kansas v Crane look at?

A

14th amendment

due process clause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
130
Q

Kansas v Hendricks court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
131
Q

Kansas v Hendricks issue

A
  • Is “mental abnormality” adequate grounds for civil commitment?
  • Does civilly committing a sex offender after a prison term for that offense violate the double jeopardy and/or ex post facto clauses of the constitution?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
132
Q

The Kansas sexually violent predator act’s definition of mental abnormality satisfied substantive due process requirements, and the act did not violate either the double jeopardy clause or the ex post facto clause.

A

Kansas v Hendricks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
133
Q

what did Kansas v Hendricks recommend for SVPs?

A

treatment if possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
134
Q

Kansas v Hendricks issue

A
  • Is “mental abnormality” adequate grounds for civil commitment?
  • Does civilly committing a sex offender after a prison term for that offense violate the double jeopardy and/or ex post facto clauses of the constitution?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
135
Q

Kumho Tire v Carmichael court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
136
Q

Kumho Tire v Carmichael issue

A

Does the Daubert standard apply only to scientific testimony?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
137
Q

It does not, but should be applied to all types of expert testimony.

A

Kumho Tire v Carmichael

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
138
Q

M’Naghten court

A

Central Criminal Court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
139
Q

M’Naghten issue

A

What is the law respecting alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with insane delusion?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
140
Q

To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused as laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

A

M’Naghten

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
141
Q

Montana v Egelhoff court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
142
Q

Montana v Egelhoff issue

A

Was the due process clause of the 14th amendment violated by Montana statute when the jury was instructed that evidence about intoxication cannot be taken in to consideration when establishing a mental state.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
143
Q

Preventing the jury from hearing the evidence did not violate the 14th amendment (not a violation of due process).

A

Montana v Egelhoff

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
144
Q

mens rea

A

purposefully
knowingly
recklessly
negligently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
145
Q

purposefully

A

knowledge that your actions would certainly result in a crime against that particular person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
146
Q

knowingly

A

knowledge that your actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but didn’t intend the crime against that particular person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
147
Q

recklessly

A

knowledge that your actions had unjustifiable risk of leading to a result, but you did it anyway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
148
Q

negligently

A

you didn’t want or intend the thing to happen – failed to exercise reasonable duty of care (below criminal)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
149
Q

North Carolina v Alford court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
150
Q

North Carolina v Alford issue

A

Can a judge accept a guilty plea if the defendant is claiming to be innocent?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
151
Q

The trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting appellee’s guilty plea.

A

North Carolina v Alford

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
152
Q

O’Connor v Donaldson court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
153
Q

O’Connor v Donaldson issue

A

Can a mentally ill individual be civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital if he/she is not dangerous?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
154
Q

A State cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends

A

O’Connor v Donaldson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
155
Q

Panetti v Quarterman court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
156
Q

Panetti v Quarterman issue

A
  • Can a defendant raise a Ford claim on a 2nd federal habeas corpus appeal?
  • Does the 8th Amendment allow execution of a defendant who does not have a rational understanding of why he is to be executed?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
157
Q
  • Supreme Court held to have statutory authority to adjudicate claims raised in petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2254 by accused who alleged that, because of his mental condition, Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment precluded his execution.
  • The state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution.
  • The Fifth Circuit employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner’s claim of incompetency on the merits
A

Panetti v Quarterman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
158
Q

Parham v JR court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
159
Q

Parham v JR issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to commit a child to a mental institution on a voluntary basis with the approval of the parent/guardian without an adversarial hearing?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
160
Q

Georgia procedures for admission of child to state administered institutional mental health care facility at request of parents or state, held not violative of due process.

A

Parham v JR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
161
Q

set guidelines for civil commitment of minors

A

Parham v JR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
162
Q

Powell v Texas court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
163
Q

Powell v Texas issue

A

Is this the same issue as decided in Robinson v California? i.e. is being convicted of chronic alcoholism a status offense?
The sole question presented is whether a criminal penalty may be imposed upon a person suffering the disease of “chronic alcoholism” for a condition – being “in a state of intoxication” in public – which is a characteristic part of the pattern of his disease and which, the trial court found, was not the consequence of appellant’s volition but of “a compulsion symptomatic of the disease of chronic alcoholism.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
164
Q

Texas was not criminalizing his status as an alcoholic, but his actual actions, which were illegal.

A

Powell v Texas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
165
Q

Robinson v California court

A

SCOTUS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
166
Q

Robinson v California issue

A

Can someone be arrested for a status offense, with no crime commitment, or is California violating the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) by way of 14th amendment (state’s breaking the law can become a constitutional issue – due process clause).

167
Q

As so construed and applied, the statute inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

A

Robinson v California

168
Q

Rock v Arkansas court

A

SCOTUS

169
Q

Rock v Arkansas issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to exclude a defendant from testifying on his/her own behalf about memories that have been refreshed via hypnosis?

170
Q

Arkansas’ per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony infringes impermissibly on a criminal defendant’s right to testify on his or her own behalf. (Violates 5th, 6th and 14th amendment rights.)

A

Rock v Arkansas

171
Q

Roper v Simmons court

A

SCOTUS

172
Q

Roper v Simmons issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to execute a defendant who commits a crime over age 15 but under age 18?

173
Q

**Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment proscription of cruel and unusual punishment held to prohibit imposition of death penalty for crimes committed when offenders were under age of 18 years.

A

Roper v Simmons

174
Q

violated starry decisis due to prior finding in Stanford v Kentucky

A

Roper v Simmons

175
Q

dissent upset about majority citing international opinions

A

Roper v Simmons

176
Q

Sell v United States court

A

SCOTUS

177
Q

Sell v United States issue

A

Whether the Constitution permits the government to administer antipsychotic drugs involuntarily to a mentally ill criminal defendant in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial for serious, but nonviolent, crimes.

178
Q

Federal Constitution held, under some circumstances, to permit government to administer antipsychotic drugs to mentally ill defendant against defendant’s will in order to render defendant competent to stand trial.

A

Sell v United States

179
Q

Specht v Patterson court

A

SCOTUS

180
Q

Specht v Patterson issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to convict a defendant under one proceeding/statue and then sentence him under another proceeding/statue without a separate hearing?

181
Q

**Failure to grant such procedural safeguards as a hearing and the right of confrontation violated the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A

Specht v Patterson

182
Q

due process clause requires

A

-present with counsel
-have an opportunity to be heard
-be confronted with witnesses against him
-have the right to crossexamine and to offer evidence of his own
(Specht v Patterson)

183
Q

psychiatric report and examination used to detain someone, they are entitled to a hearing with due process

A

Specht v Patterson

184
Q

State v Hurd court

A

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County

185
Q

State v Hurd issue

A

Is testimony witness that has been refreshed by hypnosis admissible?

186
Q

It is admissible if the State meets its burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was no impermissibly suggestive or coercive conduct during the hypnotic session.

A

State v Hurd

187
Q

State v Perry court

A

Supreme Court of Louisiana

188
Q

State v Perry issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to force medicate someone for the sole purpose of restoring competency for execution?

189
Q

it violates his right to privacy or personhood - constitutes cruel, excessive and unusual punishment

A

State v Perry

190
Q

State v Perry

A
  • The patient’s autonomy rights are violated
  • regimen preclude a trustful, communicative doctor-patient relationship
  • the physician cannot serve two masters
  • patient’s well-being may be subordinated to the duty the doctor owes the state.
191
Q

US v Comstock court

A

SCOTUS

192
Q

US v Comstock issue

A

Does the Constitution allow the federal government to enact a law to civilly commit sex offenders in federal custody after the end of their prison term?

193
Q

The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress authority sufficient to enact §4248 (civil commitment).

A

US v Comstock

194
Q

US v Comstock

A

1- The Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in furtherance of its constitutionally enumerated powers.
2- Congress has long been involved in the delivery of mental-health care to federal prisoners, and has long provided for their civil commitment.
3- The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose.
4- § 4248 does not “invade” state sovereignty, but rather requires accommodation of state interests:
5- Section 4248 is narrow in scope. Far from a “general police power,” § 4248 is a reasonably adapted and narrowly tailored means of pursuing the Government’s legitimate interest as a federal custodian in the responsible administration of its prison system

195
Q

Vitek v Jones court

A

SCOTUS

196
Q

Vitek v Jones issue

A

Is it unconstitutional to involuntarily transfer a convicted, incarcerated prisoner to a psychiatric hospital without certain procedural protections (e.g., notice, an adversary hearing, provision of counsel)?

197
Q

US v Comstock

A

1- The Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in furtherance of its constitutionally enumerated powers.

2- Congress has long been involved in the delivery of mental-health care to federal prisoners, and has long provided for their civil commitment.

3- The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose.

4- § 4248 does not “invade” state sovereignty, but rather requires accommodation of state interests:

5- Section 4248 is narrow in scope. Far from a “general police power,” § 4248 is a reasonably adapted and narrowly tailored means of pursuing the Government’s legitimate interest as a federal custodian in the responsible administration of its prison system

198
Q

Vitek hearings

A
  • availability of legal counsel
  • cross-examine witnesses
  • independent decision maker

notice
written findings

199
Q

Washington v Harper court

A

SCOTUS

200
Q

Washington v Harper issue

A

Is it a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment for the State to force involuntary medication on an inmate without judicial hearing?

201
Q

State regulation allowing involuntary treatment of state prisoner with antipsychotic drugs, without judicial hearing, held not to violate Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

A

Washington v Harper

202
Q

Wilson v United States court

A

**US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

203
Q

Wilson v United States issue

A

Is it a denial of due process or of the right to effective assistance of counsel to try a defendant suffering from amnesia to the point they have no recollection of the events of the alleged crime?

204
Q

A loss of memory should bar prosecution only when its presence would in fact be crucial to the construction and presentation of a defense and hence essential to the fairness and accuracy of the proceedings.

A

Wilson v United States

205
Q

Wilson v United States

A

**look at 5th and 6th amendments

close to being violated??

206
Q

Barefoot v Estelle court

A

SCOTUS

207
Q

No error was found in the use of hypothetical questions to psychiatric witnesses, despite contentions that doctors should not have been permitted to give opinions on the ultimate issue before the jury.

A

Barefoot v Estelle

208
Q

Zinermon v Burch court

A

SCOTUS

209
Q

The court suggested that Florida and other states that statutorily require voluntary admissions to be competent should have procedure to screen voluntary admissions for competency.

A

Zinermon v Burch

210
Q

Ake v Oklahoma court

A

SCOTUS

211
Q

A state must provide an indigent criminal defendant with free psychiatric assistance in preparing an insanity defense if the defendant’s sanity at the time of the crime is seriously in question.

A

Ake v Oklahoma

212
Q

Certain death penalty defendants have a separate right to psychiatric help. When the state seeks the death penalty on the ground that the defendant presents a danger to society, an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to psychiatric assistance in rebutting that assertion.

A

Ake v Oklahoma

213
Q

Payne v Tennessee court

A

SCOTUS

214
Q

The 8th amendment erects no per se bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering “victim impact” evidence relating to the victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murder on the victim’s family.

A

Payne v Tennessee

215
Q

Lake v Cameron court

A

Washington DC Court of Appeals

216
Q

A patient cannot be held involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital, if there is some less restrictive treatment alternative to keep her safe.

A

Lake v Cameron

217
Q

Lessard v Schmidt court

A

Wisconsin Federal Court

218
Q

Standard of proof for civil commitment held to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and procedural safeguards similar to criminal commitment were mandated

A

Lessard v Schmidt

219
Q

procedural safe guards for civil commitment

A
  • Privilege against self-incrimination (5th amendment right); warning of no need to talk to psychiatrist
  • Right to counsel
  • Right to effective and timely notice of charges justifying detention
  • Right to a jury trial
  • Exclusion of hearsay evidence
  • Right to be present and cross examine witnesses
220
Q

Rouse v Cameron court

A

Washington DC Court of Appeals

221
Q

There is a “right to treatment” for people held in mental institutions. Denial of treatment raised constitutional questions.

A

Rouse v Cameron

222
Q

Youngberg v Romeo court

A

SCOTUS

223
Q

Involuntarily committed retarded persons held to have constitutionally protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amend. to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by the interests.

A

Youngberg v Romeo

224
Q

Wyatt v Stickney court

A

US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division

225
Q

There are minimum constitutional standards for adequate treatment. You can’t say failure to give these treatments is lack of funds. The big 3: humane psychological and physical environment, qualified staff in numbers sufficient to administer adequate treatment and individualized treatment plans.

A

Wyatt v Stickney

226
Q

Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College Court

A

DC Court of Appeals

227
Q

Judge Wright ordered that an emergency writ be signed to administer such transfusions as were necessary to save Mrs. Jones’s life.

A

Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College

228
Q

Rogers v Commissioner court

A

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

229
Q
  • Judge, not guardian, makes treatment decision

* “Substituted judgment”

A

Rogers v Commissioner

230
Q

Rennie v Klein court

A

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

231
Q

Involuntarily committed mentally ill patients have a constitutional right to refuse administration of antipsychotic drugs.

A

Rennie v Klein

232
Q

Canterbury v Spence court

A

DC Court of Appeals

233
Q

We now find, as a part of the physician’s overall obligation to the patient, a similar duty of reasonable disclosure of the choices with respect to proposed therapy and the dangers inherently and potentially involved.

A

Canterbury v Spence

234
Q

Kaimowitz v Michigan court

A

Michigan Circuit Court, Wayne County

235
Q

Informed consent cannot be given by an involuntarily detained mental patient for experimental psychosurgery.

A

Kaimowitz v Michigan

236
Q

Cruzan v Director court

A

SCOTUS

237
Q

Missouri requirement that incompetent’s wishes as to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence held not violative of due process.

A

Cruzan v Director

238
Q

Washington v Glucksberg court

A

SCOTUS

239
Q

State statute, which provides that a person who knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide is guilty of felony of promoting suicide attempt, held not violative of Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

A

Washington v Glucksberg

240
Q

In re Lifschutz court

A

Supreme Court of California

241
Q
  • No constitutional right enables the psychotherapist to assert an absolute privilege concerning all psychotherapeutic communications.
  • The existence of a broad statutory privilege in clergymen does not deny psychotherapists the equal protection of the laws.
  • The patient-litigant exception, as properly limited, does not necessarily entail an overbroad intrusion into the patient’s privacy.
A

In re Lifschuztz

242
Q

Doe v Roe court

A

Supreme Court of New York

243
Q

A physician who enters into an agreement with a patient to provide medical attention impliedly covenants to keep in confidence all disclosures made by the patient concerning the patient’s physical or mental condition as well as all matters discovered by the physician in the course of examination or treatment.

A

Doe v Roe

244
Q
  • No constitutional right enables the psychotherapist to assert an absolute privilege concerning all psychotherapeutic communications.
  • The existence of a broad statutory privilege in clergymen does not deny psychotherapists the equal protection of the laws.
  • The patient-litigant exception, as properly limited, does not necessarily entail an overbroad intrusion into the patient’s privacy.
A

In re Lifschuztz

245
Q

Confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and the psychotherapist’s patient in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. – This extends also to social workers conducting psychotherapy. [Extends to Federal Court only]

A

Jaffee v Redmond

246
Q

Estelle v Gamble court

A

SCOTUS

247
Q

Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment.

A

Estelle v Gamble

248
Q

Farmer v Brennan court

A

SCOTUS

249
Q

A prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for acting with “deliberate indifference” to inmate health or safety only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.

A

Farmer v Brennan

250
Q

Brown v Plata court

A

SCOTUS

251
Q

Three-judge court acted properly in requiring California to reduce its prison population to remedy lack of care for those with serious medical and psychological conditions, as other remedies would not provide effective relief.

A

Brown v Plata

252
Q

Tarasoff v Regents court

A

California Supreme Court

253
Q

When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger.

A

Tarasoff v Regents (Tarasoff II)

254
Q

Roy v Hartogs court

A

Supreme Court of New York

255
Q

Defendant psychiatrist was properly found liable in malpractice for inducing plaintiff to have sexual intercourse with him as part of her prescribed therapy.

A

Roy v Hartogs

256
Q

Mazza v Medical Mutual court

A

Supreme Court of North Carolina

257
Q

The terms of the insurance contract in the present case provide coverage for punitive damages, and public policy does not prohibit such coverage. [Punitive damages to be covered by insurance]

A

Mazza v Medical Mutual

258
Q

Dillon v Legg court

A

Supreme Court of California

259
Q

Those who are out of the field of physical danger through impact shall have a legally protected right to be free from emotional distress occasioned by the peril of others, when that distress results in physical impairment. [Reasonably foreseeable]

A

Dillon v Leg

260
Q

zone of danger reasonably foreseeable

A
  • located near the scene of the accident
  • direct emotional impact upon plaintiff
  • plaintiff and the victim were closely related
261
Q

Olmstead v LC court

A

SCOTUS

262
Q

Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act held to require states, under some circumstances, to provide persons with mental disabilities with community-based treatment rather than placement in institutions.

A

Olmstead v LC

263
Q

Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson court

A

SCOTUS

264
Q

Sexual harassment creating hostile or abusive work environment, without economic loss, held to violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A

Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson

265
Q

Harris v Forklift court

A

SCOTUS

266
Q

To be actionable as “abusive work environment” harassment, conduct need not “seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well-being” or lead the plaintiff to “suffer injury.”

A

Harris v Forklift

267
Q

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services court

A

SCOTUS

268
Q

Same-sex sexual harassment in workplace held actionable as sex discrimination under provision of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services

269
Q

Landeros v Flood court

A

Supreme Court of California

270
Q

It is the standard of care for a physician to suspect, work-up and diagnose child abuse. It is also required by legislative statute for hospitals and physicians to report concerns of child abuse to the proper authorities.

A

Landeros v Flood

271
Q

DeShaney v. Winnebago court

A

SCOTUS

272
Q

County agency held to have had no duty, under due process clause of Federal Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, to protect child against abuse by his father while child was in father’s custody.

A

DeShaney v. Winnebago

273
Q

Board of Education v Rowley court

A

SCOTUS

274
Q

Deaf student held not entitled to sign-language interpreter in public school classes, under Education for All Handicapped Children Act, where she was receiving adequate education and personalized instruction.

A

Board of Education v Rowley

275
Q

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro court

A

SCOTUS

276
Q

Cathcterization is a “related service” under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is inapplicable when relief is available under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to remedy a denial of educational services.

A

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

277
Q

Bragdon v Abbott court

A

SCOTUS

278
Q

Dental patient’s asymptomatic HIV infection held to be disability under Americans with Disabilities Act provision.

A

Bragdon v Abbott

279
Q

In making findings of an amnesic defendant’s mental competency, the court should consider the following factors:

A

(1) the extent to which the amnesia affected defendant’s ability to consult with and assist his lawyer,
(2) the extent to which the amnesia affected defendant’s ability to testify in his own behalf,
(3) the extent to which the evidence could have been extrinsically reconstructed in view of defendant’s amnesia,
(4) the extent to which the government assisted defendant and his counsel in that reconstruction,
(5) the strength of the government’s case, and
(6) any other facts and circumstances.

280
Q

Safeguards for hypnotically refreshed testimony

A

(1) Hypnotic session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist/psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis.
(2) The qualified professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of and not responsible to the prosecutor, investigator or the defense.
(3) Any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel prior to the hypnotic session must be in written form so that subsequently the extent of the information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined.
(4) Before induction of hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them, carefully avoiding adding any new elements to the witness’ description of the events.
(5) All contacts between the hypnotist and the subject should be recorded so that a permanent record is available for comparison and study to establish that the witness has not received information or suggestion which might later be reported as having been first described by the subject during hypnosis. Videotape should be employed if possible, but should not be mandatory.
(6) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and post-hypnotic interview.

281
Q

Sell criteria

A
  • treatment is medically appropriate
  • is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial’s fairness
  • taking account of less intrusive alternatives
  • necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests
282
Q

criminalization of civil commitment

A

Lessard v Schmidt

283
Q

specific intent

A

purposefully

knowingly

284
Q

affirmative defense

A

Self-defense
Insanity defense
Entrapment defense
Necessity defense

285
Q

Once evidence of a mental illness is introduced by the defense, the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.

A

Durham v US

286
Q

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

A

US v Comstock

necessary and proper clause

287
Q

PTSD response validity scales

A

PAI

288
Q

Sequencial Intercept Model

A

Intercept 1, Law Enforcement and Emergency Services; Intercept 2, Initial Hearings and Initial Detention; Intercept 3, Jails and Courts;
Intercept 4, Reentry from Jails, Prisons, and Hospitals; Intercept 5, Community Corrections and Community Support Services.

Intercept zero represents the addition of a new paradigm at the front end of the criminal justice system, prior to arrest, for public health and primary prevention.

289
Q

Riggins v. Nevada

A

U.S Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial.

290
Q

Helling v. McKinney

A

extended the requirement that inmates receive required medical care and that not doing so was in violation of the constitution

291
Q

locality rule

A

requires defendant physicians to provide the same degree of skill and care that is required of other physicians practicing in the same or similar community.

292
Q

cortical dementia

A

memory problems and language deficits

293
Q

subcortical dementia

A

attention/concentration deficits, information processing problems, reduced verbal fluency and executive function deficits.

294
Q

elements of informed consent/capacity

A

understand the relevant information
???
???
reason rationally

295
Q

Santosky v. Kramer

A

clear and convincing evidence standard for termination of parental rights

296
Q

Rogers v Commissioner violation

A

42 U.S.C. 1983

297
Q

Hall v. Florida

A

Florida’s process of identifying intellectually disordered defendants in capital cases:

Unconstitutional because it required defendants to show an IQ test score of 70 or below before being permitted to submit additional evidence of intellectual disability

use standard error of measure

298
Q

Irresistible Impulse Test

A

inability of an individual to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law

299
Q

Bell v. Wolfish

A

constitutional standard that governs the conditions of confinement of pretrial detainees is:

due process???

8th amendment does not help pretrial detainees

300
Q

Montgomery v. Louisiana

A

Children’s diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform

301
Q

Medina v. California

A

U.S. Supreme Court upheld that a state statue calling for a presumption of competence and placing the burden of proof on the party raising the issue.

302
Q

sexual harassment

A

discrimination on the basis of gender

303
Q

parasomnias (sleepwalking)

A

first 3-4hrs of the night

eyes upward and inward

304
Q

wild beast standard

A

total deprivation of memory and understanding

305
Q

Bowring v. Godwin

A

mental health treatment was not an absolute right for prisoners

306
Q

US v Comstock

A

necessary and proper clause

307
Q

group-to-individual (G2i) inference problem

A

problem of drawing reliable conclusions about particular individuals based on studies that report averaged differences between groups of subjects.

308
Q

bath salts

A

Synthetic cathinones

309
Q

past crimes

A

A therapist does not have a legal obligation to report statements of a patient’s past unreported and/or unprosecuted felony.

310
Q

ALI model penal code

A

defendant’s mental illness renders them unable to appreciate the criminality of their act (cognitive prong)

OR

was unable to conform their behavior to the law (volitional prong)

311
Q

vicarious trauma PTSD

A

The DSM-5 excludes the diagnosis when the exposure is only through media.

312
Q

Evidence-based psychotherapies for suicide prevention include:

A

Dialectical behavioral therapy

313
Q

Olmstead v. L. C.

A

mandates states to provide community placements for institutionalized patients who meet certain criteria

314
Q

Dillon v. Legg,

A

Her injuries were reasonably foreseeable.

315
Q

Painter v. Bannister

A

The “best-interests” standard allowed for award of a child to a non-parent

316
Q

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

A

Congress granted the government the authority to civilly commit federal inmates deemed to be “sexually dangerous” at the end of their prison sentence through:

317
Q

PCL-R psychopathy

A

15-20% among male prisoners and 0.6% among the overall population

318
Q

14th amendment level of scrutiny

A

If the law in question involves a fundamental right (such as voting), it must pass strict scrutiny

319
Q

Strict Scrutiny

A

law in question must further a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored, and implemented by the least restrictive means

Does the law infringe upon a Fundamental Right

Does the law disproportionally affect a suspect classification

320
Q

McKune v. Lile

A

The Court ruled that the policy requiring disclosure of sexual crimes did not violate the Fifth Amendment because consequences for not participating in the program did not lengthen the sentence

321
Q

Rational Basis test

A

the law in question must be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” governmental reason offered as its justification

322
Q

Intermediate Scrutiny

A

rarely used

323
Q

Parental Preference model

A

past parental roles should be the basis of future custody after divorce

324
Q

the tender years doctrine

A

Maternal Preference Doctrine

325
Q

Paternal Preference Model

A

children property of father

326
Q

Least Detrimental Alternative

A

Anna Freud

advanced the concept of the psychological parent, which is the parent with whom the child has the closest reciprocal relationship

327
Q

Rex v. Arnold

A

wild beast test

328
Q

Rex v Hadfield

A

??

329
Q

Model Penal Code” Test

A

inability to either understand the criminal act or an inability to conform behavior to the law, as the result of a mental defect.

330
Q

“Irresistible Impulse” Test

A

inability to control the impulse, due to mental disease, that led to the criminal act

331
Q

standards of proof listed from the most stringent requirements to the most lax

A

Clear and convincing > preponderance of evidence > Probable cause > reason to believe

332
Q

mental disorder with the highest suicide rate

A

bipolar depression - 20%
schizophrenia - 20% attempt, 5-10% die
depressive disorder - 5%

333
Q

Fare v. Michael C

A

in order for this youth to waive her rights, which of the following should be taken into consideration:

age of the juvenile

334
Q

Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Ac

A

Financial requirements for mental health coverage can be no more restrictive than medical/surgical care

335
Q

Cooper v. Oklahoma

A

level of certainty necessary to adjudicate a defendant incompetent to proceed is:

preponderance of the evidence

336
Q

Risk factors that have been shown to be more likely to lead to adult antisocial behaviors include

A

ommitting multiple types of crimes (those that commit violent crimes are more likely to commit other crimes), hyperactivity, impaired concentration, and risk taking/reckless behavior; poor parenting skills, including inconsistent parenting or lack of discipline; and difficulties with academic achievement

337
Q

Carter v General Motor

A

Michigan Supreme Court

emotional disabilities are compensable under Workmen’s Comp Act regardless of whether the cause is direct stained pressure injury, mental shock or su

338
Q

In re Gault

A

juvenile rights: timely notice, present of counsel, confront and cross-exam witnesses, no self-incrimination

no right to jury

339
Q

Miller v Alabama

A

8th Am. forbids mandatory LWOP for juveniles

340
Q

Graham v Florida

A

8th Am. forbids LWOP for non-homicide offenses for juveniles

341
Q

Riggins v Nevada constitutional issue

A

violated 6th and 14th Ams

murder trial force Mellaril

342
Q

Godinez v Moran waiver

A

knowing and voluntary

343
Q

Cooper v Oklahoma constitutional issue

A

14th Am substantive due process

fundamental fairness

344
Q

test for competence to be executed

A

Ford v Wainwright

  • prisoner aware of impending execution
  • knowns reason for it
345
Q

State v Perry constitutional issue

A

8th Am - cruel and unusual punishment

right to privacy and personhood

346
Q

constitutional right to individual treatment

A

Donaldson v O’Connor

347
Q

due process rights of IST

A

Jackson v Indiana

348
Q

State v Perry constitutional issue

A

8th Am - cruel and unusual punishment

14th Am due process

right to privacy and personhood

349
Q

Fare v Michael

A

asking for probation officer is not per se asking for counsel under Miranda

does not invoke 5th Am rights

350
Q

Roper v Simmons constitutional issue

A

8th Am

14th Am

351
Q

Board of Education v Rowley

A

free and appropriate education

maximization of potential not required

352
Q

Estelle v Gamble constitutional issue

A

8th Am

353
Q

deliberate indifference mens rea

A

subjective recklessness

354
Q

hostile work environment standard

A

Harris v Forklift

reasonable person finds hostile

victim perceived as hostile

355
Q

Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson ultimate issue

A

unwelcomeness

356
Q

People v Stritzinger

A

6th Am rights violated when therapist gave subsequent information to police regarding step-father’s sexual abuse

psychotherapist-patient privilege violated

357
Q

State v Andring

A

physician-patient privilege extends to confidential group therapy sessions

358
Q

DeShaney v Winnebago constitutional issue

A

14th Am substantive due process

359
Q

Wyatt v Stickney constitutional issue

A

14th Am due process

360
Q

US v Georgia

A

disabled state prison inmate can sue for money under ADA

361
Q

ADA bans segregation of disabled

A

Olmstead v LC

362
Q

zone of danger

A

Dillon v Legg

  • near scene
  • direct impact from witnessing
  • closely related to victim
363
Q

M’Naghten questions

A

15 law lords
5 questions

  • jury instructions (nature and quality + wrongfulness)
  • punishable if knew at the time act was contrary to the law
  • responsible if delusional content still unlawful (delusion that someone wrong you, so you kill them vs delusion of self-defense)
364
Q

Washington v US

A

psychiatrists prohibited from addressing the ultimate issue in insanity cases

365
Q

Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act

A
  • result of severe mental disease/defect
  • nature and quality + wrongfulness
  • defendant has burden of proving in sanity
  • clear and convincing evidence
366
Q

Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act

A
  • result of severe mental disease/defect
  • nature and quality + wrongfulness
  • defendant has burden of proving in sanity
  • clear and convincing evidence
367
Q

insanity release standard

A

Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act

  • clear and convincing evidence - violent crime
  • preponderance of the evidence - nonviolent crime
368
Q

Ibn-Tames v US

A

trial court erred in precluding psychologist’s testimony on battered women bc it did not:

  • speak to ultimate issue
  • speak to something average folks know (it was beyond the ken)
369
Q

test for admissibility

A

Ibn-Tames v US

  • subject matter so scientific as to be beyond the ken of layman
  • expert witness qualified to give opinion
  • sate of art perms reasonable opinion
370
Q

3 relevant factors in deciding what type of assistance is required in insanity defense

A

Ake v Oklahoma

  • defendant’s stake in the proceeding
  • state’s interest
  • value of assistance and risk of error if it is denied
371
Q

standard to refuse NGRI

A

Frendak v US

Dusky standard not enough

judge must inquire:

  • fully informed of alternatives
  • comprehends the consequences
  • freely choose to waive
372
Q

Foucha v Louisiana standard

A

insanity acquitte may be held only if BOTH mentally ill AND dangerous

373
Q

Jones v US standard

A

insanity acquitted may be held if he is insane OR dangerous

374
Q

Clark v Arizona

A

no constitutional minimum that Staes must have in phrasing their insanity defense standard

lawful to preclude mental health testimony on ability to form specific intent

375
Q

3 categories of evidence with potential bearing on mens rea

A

Clark v Arizona

  • observation evidence
  • mental disease evidence
  • capacity evidence
376
Q

Clites v State of Iowa

A

need for informed consent in order to not pay damages

377
Q

right to treatment

A

Youngberg v Romeo

378
Q

right to refuse treatment

A

Rennie v Klein

Rogers v Commissioner

379
Q

right to treatment

A

Youngberg v Romeo
Wyatt v Stickney
Rouse v Cameron

380
Q

right to refuse treatment

A

Rennie v Klein
Rogers v Commissioner

Hargrave v Vermont

381
Q

Hargrave v Vermont

A

Act 114 (overturns DPOA for involuntarily committed pts) discriminates against mentally disabled individuals in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act

382
Q

Hargrave v Vermont court

A

circuit court

383
Q

duty to warn

A

Tarasoff I

384
Q

duty to protect

A 
Tarasoff II
(landmark case)
385
Q

In re Lifschutz

A

patient owns the privilege, not the doctor

therapist has no constitutional right to privacy

386
Q

Lipari v Sears court

A

US District Court Nebraska

387
Q

Lipari v Sears

A

therapist has a duty to warn class of individuals that would be foreseeable victims (public at large)

388
Q

protected under Jaffee v Redmond

A

federal cases
not military

psychiatrist
psychologist
social worker doing therapy

389
Q

criminalized juvenile hearings

A

In re Gault

390
Q

criminalized civil commitment hearings

A

Lessard v Schmidt

391
Q

civil commitment standard (pt rights)

A

Lessard v Schmidt

  • advance notice
  • right to jury
  • right to counsel
  • privilege against self-incrimination
  • exclusion of hearsay evidence
  • notice of state’s proposed testimony
392
Q

Zinermon v Burch

A

constitutional to bring suit against due process issues regarding voluntary commitment issues in federal court

393
Q

Montana v Egelhoff

A

precluding information about voluntary intoxication relative to mens rea doe not violate federal due process

394
Q

Washington v Glucksberg

A

right to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause

395
Q

Judge Bazelon

A

Durham v US
Rouse v Cameron
Lake v Cameron
Washington v US

396
Q

deference to medical decision-making

A

Parham v JL & JR

Youngberg v Romeo

397
Q

decided before trial on the merits

A

Landeros v Flood
Lipari v Sears
Tarasoff v Regents
Kumho Tire v Carmichael

398
Q

Painter v Bannister court

A

Iowa District Court

399
Q

Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act

A
  • set limits on ultimate issue testimony
  • set insanity standard in federal trials
  • set insanity acquitted release standards
  • specified the burden of proof on insanity trials
400
Q

Dusky burden of proof for IST

A

more likely than not

401
Q

Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act

A
  • severe mental disease or defect required for insanity
  • set limits on ultimate issue testimony
  • set insanity standard in federal trials (clear and convincing evidence)
  • set insanity acquitted release standards (higher standard for violent crimes vs nonviolent)
  • specified the burden of proof on insanity trials
402
Q

Jackson v Indian constitutional issue

A

8th Am
14th Am due process
14th Am equal protection

403
Q

M’Naughten

A

1st insanity case heard at appellate level

15 judges, 5 questions

Judge Tindal presided

clear and convincing evidence = closest standard

404
Q

Rex v Arnold

A

wild beast test

405
Q

James Hadfield trial

A

offspring of a delusion test

406
Q

Earl Ferrers trial

A

1st recorded psychiatric testimony

407
Q

Foucha v Louisiana class compared

A

convicted prisoners

408
Q

Jones v US class compared

A

civil committed

409
Q

Jackson v Indiana class compared

A

civil committed

410
Q

Doe v Roe

A

consent not obtained in writing

harm inflicted not intentional

411
Q

Santosky v Kramer constitutional issue

A

14th Am

412
Q

IST standard

A

preponderance of the evidence

defendant bears burden of persuasion

413
Q

offspring of a delusion

A

Hadfield trial

414
Q

irresistible impulse

A

Edward Oxford trial

Landmarks (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions